Notes:
The second photo is from the same stick. The Exidia was partially rehydrated by repeatedly dunking it in a small stream as I made my way from a dark hollow to a place where the evening sun was still available.

and even more complicated is Exidiopsis. In general all heterobasidiomycota are poorly known and not many mycologists are dealing with them. I got to know them better in the last three years since my participation on the Aphyllophorales meetings held in France every fall. But there is still so much work left.
By the way, my problem is solved. It was a prob with the umlauts I use for some of my localities.

In my opinion, it looks more like something between truncata and recisa, with scattered warts on the hymenium, but with a brown colour and lacking the velvety surface on the underside, which is a good character of truncata when young.
This may well be what Ginns interpreted as recisa and described in a canadian journal. There, the spore size (9-14 × 3.5-4(-5) µm) is closer to truncata than to our european recisa. You can check his non-original description in MycoBank.

But this genus is poorly known in Europe too. We also have another recisa-twin: brunneola, with larger spores, growing on aspen. To my knowledge, no modern methods have been used to tell how many species we actually have, and the nomenclature isn’t settled in a satisfying manner either.

this does neither look like Exidia recisa ss.auct.europ. nor Exidia truncata nor Exidia glandulosa (=plana) at all. I am quite sure this is something distinct and as mentioned an American species in need of a new name. Did anyone do microscopy on it?

I see that you voted “as if” for the name Exidia recisa, which seems kinda strange to me. I’ve been observing winter jellies in Ohio for three years running, and I don’t see anything in this observation which distinguishes it from others going by the name Exidia recisa. There could be some subtle differences that I’m missing, but none are jumping out at me. Compare to:

I usually save the “as if” button for cases where the name is not even close – as if one were to call it a watermelon. I left the stick in the woods, so the photos here are all we have to go on.

All my observations from Ohio look a little different from your wikicommons link (File:2006-12-10 Exidia recisa.jpg), which I assume was found in Germany. This might be yet another case of imposing a European name on an evolutionarily divergent North American taxon, but for now I think Exidia recisa is the best name for this common brown jelly leaf from Ohio.

If Exidia truncata is a synonym for Exidia glandulosa, as you claim in your discussion with Irene, then the mushroom in this observation can’t be that either. But judging from the drawing you posted, E. truncata might be something altogether different.

I think your find isn’t E. recisa. Do you’ve collected the branch with the Exidia? If so you could take it in a bucket of water for swelling up the fruitbodies to its full size. E. truncata must show a stubbly non fertile underpart and brown-blackish to black colors. E. recisa has a smoother underpart and brownish colors with ruby tones:

Generally I’m carefully with “opinions” in databases because it’s often diffuse which opinions will be reflect. In my eyes neither IF nor MB are bibles of nomenclature. I think we must have a closer look to the diagnosis of the taxa itself and the rules of the nomenclature code (ICN/ ICBN).

In the case of E. glandulosa the problem is the change of the nomenclature starting point for this group of mushrooms. Because of that the older name from Bulliard is ready to use. More informations you could find in Roberts paper (Mycotaxon 109).

In the German language area the name E. plana is common for the species what you’ve called E. glandulosa. I think it would be better not to use the epitheton glandulosa for both species to avoid confusions in future (nomen confusum). But this requires a conservation of e.g. E. truncata and E. nigricans or E. plana.

You’re right Andreas, Bulliard’s picture doesn’t show what I have been calling glandulosa – so it might be truncata, then. But neither IndexFungorum nor MycoBank have made any changes of opinion here. I think this ought to be a matter of consensus and traditional use of the names.

It’s getting even more confusing if names like nigricans and plana should be proposed to replace what we now (still) call glandulosa, names we know even less about than Fries’ interpretation of glandulosa.

Tremella glandulosa Bull. is an older name for E. truncata Fr. so this species must be named E. glandulosa. Sorry for the confusion with the author citation: The correct name is E. glandulosa (Bull.) Fr., ss. orig.